coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1930 and 1940 respectively and live in Zagreb.
5.  On 29 January 1974 the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) received a death certificate of a certain M.K. and at the hearing held on 28 February 1974 her will was pronounced. The applicants were among her heirs. However, another party claimed that M.K. had made another will on a date posterior to the one of the will which had been pronounced.
6.  Until 5 November 1997 a number of hearings were held, but the proceedings were not concluded. The last hearing was held on 3 October 1995. After 5 November 1997 (i.e. the date when the Convention was ratified by Croatia) the first hearing was held on 22 April 2003, and then again on 15 May 2003.
7.  On 21 May 2003 the Split Municipal Court stayed the inheritance proceedings and instructed the applicants and two other persons to institute civil proceedings against a third person in connection with the dispute among them arising in respect of the inheritance proceedings. However, despite the fact that the proceedings were stayed, on 20 August 2003 another hearing was held when it was decided that the attorney, who allegedly assisted M.K. in drafting her second will, be heard. Since the attorney resided in Zagreb, she was heard by the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) on 11 May 2004.
8.  It appears that the applicants appealed against the decision staying the proceedings and on 13 July 2004 the case file was therefore transferred to the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) as the appellate court.
9.  Meanwhile, on 23 January 2004 the applicants filed a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings. On 14 February 2005 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants' right to a trial within reasonable time and awarded each applicant Croatian Kunas (HRK) 10,600 in compensation. It also ordered the Split County Court to adopt its decision in the shortest time possible but no later than six months from the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette.
10.  On 8 April 2005 the Split County Court upheld the first instance decision by which the inheritance proceedings had been stayed.
11.  In the civil proceedings instituted according to the Municipal Court's instruction (see paragraph 7 above) on 9 May 2005, another party filed a constitutional complaint about the length of these proceedings and on 12 March 2007 the Constitutional Court ordered the Split Municipal Court to adopt its decision in the shortest time possible but no later than six months from the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette.
12.  The inheritance proceedings are sill pending.
4.  The applicants, father and daughter, were born in 1929 and 1957 respectively and live in Budapest.
5.  On 11 May 1995 the applicants filed an action for the invalidation of a contract in the context of a real-estate dispute.
6.  The Budapest II/III District Court held numerous hearings and obtained the opinions of four experts. The applicants' action was gradually extended to include altogether 28 respondents, three of whom died in the meantime. Pending the identification of their successors, the proceedings had to be interrupted on three occasions, for respectively 7, 12 and 5 months.
7.  On 25 January 2002 the District Court gave judgment and invalidated the disputed contract, but dismissed the remainder of the action.
8.  After several hearings, on 19 October 2004 the Budapest Regional Court amended the first-instance decision in a final judgment.
9.  The District Court rectified and completed the decision of 25 January 2002 on 12 September 2005.
10.  Because one of the plaintiffs did not comply with the final decision, enforcement proceedings commenced before the Budaörs District Court in 2005. This procedure was interrupted on 6 September 2005, since the enforced relocation of a fence would have cut off the debtor from her source of water. The District Court informed the applicants that they should seek a court injunction obliging the debtor to remove her water pipe. The applicants did so on 19 February 2006.
11.  After three hearings, on 19 April 2007 the Budaörs District Court found for the applicants. The debtor appealed to the Pest County Regional Court. According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, the case has not yet ended.
5.  The first applicant was born in 1946 and lives in St-Petersburg. The second applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Chişinău.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  At the material time, the applicants were owners of a house in Chişinău and the land adjacent to it. Their neighbour, T., built an unauthorised house extension on the land belonging to the applicants.
8.  In 1995 the Centru local executive (Pretura sectorului Centru) in Chişinău issued several decisions requiring the demolition of the unauthorised construction. In 1996 it also cancelled T.'s original building authorisation as it had been issued unlawfully. T. initiated court proceedings; the applicants were involved as third parties since their property rights were directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings. They enjoyed full procedural rights.
9.  On 10 December 1996 the Centru District Court found in favour of T. and ordered the local authorities to annul their decisions and confirm the lawfulness of the construction.
10.  On 16 May 1997 the Chisinau Regional Court quashed that judgment, rejected T.'s action and upheld the administrative decisions for the demolition of the building.
11.  On 15 January 1998 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 16 May 1997 and upheld the judgment of 10 December 1996.
12.  On 30 September 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General's request for annulment, quashed the judgment of 15 January 1998 and upheld the judgment of 16 May 1997. That judgment was final and enforceable.
13.  On 4 December 1998 the local authority issued a new decision for the demolition of the unauthorised construction.
14.  The applicants subsequently made numerous requests for the enforcement of the final judgment. Each time the local authority replied that the enforcement was not possible, either due to weather conditions, the lack of necessary equipment or the new judicial proceedings initiated by T.
15.  T. made several attempts to reopen the proceedings by using extraordinary means of appeal and claiming that his wife and daughter had not been party to the proceedings. These requests were rejected as inadmissible by court decisions in 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2006. The enforcement proceedings were twice suspended by court orders pending the outcome of these proceedings: for six months in 2003 and for nine months in 2005.
16.  Following the communication of the present application to the Government, in July 2006 the judgment of 30 September 1998 was enforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Chişinău.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  In 1997 a criminal investigation was initiated in respect of the applicant. She was detained in the remand centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs between 18 June and 15 July 1998. She was again detained between 30 September and 31 October 1998 in the remand centre of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant allegedly complained to the prison authorities about the harsh conditions of detention in the remand centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
8.  By its final judgment of 20 May 1999 the Court of Appeal acquitted her of all the charges against her.
9.  The applicant initiated civil proceedings claiming damages for unlawful detention and related acts on the part of the prosecution and the courts.
10.  On 26 December 2001 the Ciocana District Court found in her favour and awarded her 12,258 Moldovan lei (MDL, equal to 1,065 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered and MDL 100,000 (EUR 8,688) for non-pecuniary damage.
11.  On 19 March 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld that judgment.
12.  On 22 August 2002 the Court of Appeal partly quashed that judgment, reducing the compensation for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 10,000 (EUR 752). It upheld the award of compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered. That judgment was final and enforceable.
13.  The Prosecutor General requested the annulment of all previous judgments and the reduction of the award for non-pecuniary damage, as part of an extraordinary procedure. On 19 March 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected that request.
14.  On 21 November 2003 the Ministry of Finance transferred the amount corresponding to the compensation due to the Decisions Enforcement Department. According to that department, the applicant received the money on 26 February 2004. The applicant had submitted the enforcement warrant to the department on 23 October 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 18 June 1996 the applicant’s wife filed for divorce.
6.  After several hearings, on 12 March 1999 the Budapest II/III District Court dissolved the parties’ marriage, and ordered the applicant to pay maintenance for the couple’s daughter in the amount of 386,260 Hungarian forints (HUF), which included arrears. The court allowed no suspensive effect for any appeal on the maintenance decision. The use of the couple’s flat was granted to the wife alone.
7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held three hearings and obtained the opinion of a real-estate valuation expert. On 7 November 2000 the court amended the first instance decision, holding that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the amount of 2.75 million Hungarian forints, which corresponded to his share of the flat. It ordered that this liability be taken into account when the District Court, in the resumed proceedings, would eventually decide on the division of the matrimonial property.
8.  On 27 April 2001 execution was ordered. On 17 October 2001 the applicant was evicted from the family flat. On 15 November 2001 his car was attached, apparently in order to recover maintenance still owed.
9.  The proceedings in respect of the remainder of the parties’ common property were resumed before the District Court on 9 October 2002. Between 5 May 2003 and 25 January 2007 numerous hearings took place, and the case was extended to include several further respondents.
10.  According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, the case has not yet ended.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 11 March 1996 the applicant brought an action in the Pest Central District Court, seeking the judicial review of a resolution adopted by the community of owners of the building in which her flat was located (közgyűlési határozat).
6.  The District Court held hearings on 9 October 1997, 5 February, 10 June and 2 November 1998, 7 September 1999, 16 March, 23 May and 12 September 2000, 22 March 2001, 20 June and 1 October 2002 and 8 April 2003.
7.  On 15 September 2003 the District Court appointed an expert. On 13 October 2003 it replaced him. On 29 December 2003 the new expert submitted his opinion, which was completed on 23 August 2004.
8.  The District Court held further hearings on 23 March and 17 June 2004, 19 January, 27 April, 7 September, 25 November 2005, 21 April, 10 May, 23 June, 1 and 29 September, 18 December 2006 and 23 February 2007.
9.  According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, the case has not yet ended.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Debrecen.
5.  On 4 March 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Debrecen District Court claiming compensation from the co-owners of a block of flats on whose plot of land she had been renting a commercial kiosk, because they had cut her establishment off from the water and electricity supply.
6.  On 19 November 1996 District Court adopted a partial decision. On appeal, on 21 May 1997 the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court quashed this decision and discontinued that part of the case.
7.  Subsequently, in the period up to 3 June 2004, the District Court held hearings at regular intervals; however, the proceedings were repeatedly interrupted on account of the deaths and succession formalities of certain respondents. The court also obtained the opinion of an expert.
8.  On 21 July 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion for bias, lodged because of the extreme protraction of the proceedings. The Regional Court observed that, procedurally, the case was very complicated, because there were more than 120 parties. Moreover, because of succession formalities in the meantime and unsuccessful attempts to serve the documents in the case on the parties, the chance of holding a hearing in due and proper form had been very slim, and the proceedings had been interrupted on account of the death of one of the respondents.
9.  A first-instance decision was adopted on 15 February 2007. According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, the case, currently involving 137 respondents, has not yet ended.
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Samara.
6.  The applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. She was issued with a certificate confirming her participation in the emergency operations. As a holder of the certificate she was entitled to certain monthly payments.
7.  In February and March 2000 the Social Security Department of the Oktyabrskiy District of Orsk (Управление социальной защиты населения Октябрьского района г. Орска, hereinafter “the social security service”) paid to the applicant the arrears for the period from November 1999 to March 2000.
8.  On 13 April 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk held that the social security service had unlawfully defaulted on the monthly payments from November 1999 to February 2000. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 24 April 2000.
9.  In April 2000 the social security service discontinued the payments. The applicant sued the social security service.
10.  On 20 August 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk held that the social security service had unlawfully refused to pay. The applicant held a certificate confirming her participation in the emergency operations in Chernobyl and was entitled to receive the payments. On 25 September 2001 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became enforceable.
11.  On 14 December 2001 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs.
12.  On 17 December 2001 the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings.
13.  On 27 February 2002 the applicant received 11,762 Russian roubles (RUB).
14.  On 11 July 2002 the bailiffs directed that the social security service pay the judgment debt by 20 August 2002. The social security service did not comply.
15.  The judgment remains unenforced in part. According to the Government, the debt amounts to RUB 13,002.20.
16.  On 22 June 2002 Judge R., the President of the Orenburg Regional Court, lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 13 April 2000 and 20 August 2001, as upheld on 25 September 2001.
17.  On 30 September 2002 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court chaired by Judge R. quashed the judgments of 13 April 2000 and 20 August 2001, as upheld on 25 September 2001, and remitted the cases for a fresh examination before the District Court. It found that the District Court had erred in the assessment of the facts and application of domestic law. In particular, it had not verified whether the certificate confirming the applicant's participation in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster was valid.
18.  On 29 November 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court held that the discontinuation of the monthly payments had been lawful and dismissed the applicant's claims. It found that the certificate confirming the applicant's participation in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster had been issued by an unauthorised person and was void. Consequently the applicant was not entitled to monthly payments.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  Following her dismissal from work on 7 November 1994 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) on 16 December 1994 against her former employer seeking her reinstatement and the salary arrears. Since the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997, the court held five hearings and obtained an expert opinion. The expert opinion received by the court on 13 February 2002 could not be served on the applicant because she had changed her address without notifying the court.
6.  On 5 February 2003 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act. On 7 July 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) accepted the applicant's complaint, finding a violation of her constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within six months following its publication in the Official Gazette and awarded her compensation in the amount of 7,500 Croatian kunas (HRK). The decision was published on 22 July 2003.
7.  In its judgment of 4 February 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant's claim as ill-founded. That judgement was served on the applicant on 1 April 2004. Following an appeal, on 13 September 2005 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
8.  In the fresh proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court a hearing was held on 3 March 2006. The hearing scheduled for 23 May 2006 was adjourned because the summons sent to the applicant had been returned. At the next hearing held on 6 November 2006 the applicant extended her claim to another defendant. The proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Lviv.
5.  In 1981 the applicant was convicted of speculating in gold and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In 1992 his conviction was annulled as unlawful. Subsequently the applicant instituted civil proceedings, seeking various kinds of compensation for his unlawful conviction and punishment.
6.  On 24 February 1998 the Khust Court (Хустський районний суд Закарпатської області) awarded the applicant 3,350.55 hryvnyas (UAH)[1] against the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”; Міністерство фінансів України) in compensation for his loss of income while in detention.
7.  This judgment became final and on 3 June 1998 the bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings. They submitted the enforcement writ to the Ministry of Finance, which redirected it to the State Treasury (Державне Казначейство України).
8.  On 18 November 2003 the enforcement writ was returned to the applicant unenforced.
9.  On 13 May 1999 the Khust Court awarded the applicant UAH 7,281.70[2] against the Khust State Treasury Department (“the Khust Treasury”; Відділ Державного казначейства в Хустському районі Закарпатської області) in compensation for the gold confiscated from him following his conviction. This decision became final.
10.  On 12 November 2002 the Khust Treasury informed the applicant that it could not make the payment without the command of the bailiffs. In connection with this, the Khust Treasury had transferred the applicant's request for enforcement and a copy of the judgment to the bailiffs and had requested the Khust Court to transfer the enforcement writ thereto.
11.  On 5 March 2003 the Khust Court informed the applicant that it had never issued the enforcement writ as the applicant personally had never requested the court to do so.
12.  The judgment of 13 May 1999 remains unenforced.
13.  On 2 April 2002 the Lychakivsky District Court of Lviv awarded the applicant UAH 2,000[3] against the State Treasury in moral damages for a delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 24 February 1998.
14.  This decision became final in October 2002 and on 9 December 2002 the enforcement proceedings were instituted. On several occasions the Treasury informed the applicant that the judgment award could not be paid on account of the lack of budgetary allocations.
15.  On 26 January 2004 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Regional Court”; Апеляційний суд Львівської області) gave the applicant, who sought to obtain a higher amount of compensation, leave to appeal against the judgment of 2 April 2002 out of time.
16.  On 15 March 2004 the Regional Court, following the applicant's appeal, reviewed the facts of the case in their entirety and quashed the judgment of 2 April 2002. The court rejected the applicant's claims against the Treasury as lacking statutory basis under domestic law. On 25 September 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.
17.  The applicant made several unsuccessful attempts to institute civil proceedings against various authorities, seeking compensation for the delays in the enforcement of the judgments in his favour.
5.  The first applicant was born in 1933. The second applicant was born in 1935. They live in Lynn, MA, the United States of America.
6.  On an unspecified date the applicants sued the Social Security Office of the Oktyabrskiy District of Rostov-on-Don (“the social security office”) for pension arrears for the period from 1 February 1998 to 31 March 1999.
7.  On 20 October 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don granted the applicants' claims. The court awarded 2,050.16 Russian roubles (RUB) to the first applicant, and RUB 1,862 to the second applicant.
8.  On 26 November 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court ordered that the social security office pay RUB 1,025.08 to the first applicant and RUB 931 to the second applicant in respect of pension arrears for the period from 1 April 1999 to 1 November 1999.
9.  On 26 January 2000 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgments of 20 October 1999 and 26 November 1999 on appeal. The judgments became enforceable.
10.  On an unspecified date the President of the Rostov Regional Court lodged an application for supervisory-review of the judgments of 20 October and 26 November 1999, as upheld on 26 January 2000.
11.  On 15 March 2001 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court found that the District Court had incorrectly applied domestic law, quashed the judgments of 20 October and 26 November 1999, as upheld on 26 January 2000, and dismissed the applicants' claims.